scholarly journals L’interprétation des clauses base-réclamation dans les contrats d’assurance de responsabilité civile au Québec

2021 ◽  
Vol 88 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 53-90
Author(s):  
Thomas Stéphane Nguema Evie
Keyword(s):  
Direct Action ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Insurance Law ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Law ◽  
Main Effects ◽  
Order Set

This article addresses the question of the interpretation of base-claim clauses in Quebec insurance law. Defined mainly by the doctrine as clauses whose effects consist in assimilating the claim to the claim of the victim, the use of base-claim clauses raise several questions as to their legality on reading articles 2396 of the civil code and 2414 of the same. coded. While the first defines the claim as a damaging event, the second article states the relative public order nature of the provisions of Chapter XV of Title 2 of Book V of the Civil Code, among which is Article 2396 of the Civil Code. Article 2414 states that the provisions of Chapter XV may be subject to a derogation if this benefits the policyholder, the insured, the beneficiary or does not infringe the rights of third parties. However, one of the main effects of base-claim clauses is to considerably restrict the direct action of the third party towards the insurer but, also, to place on the back of the insured the lack of diligence of the injured third party. In the silence of the law, it is then up to the courts to assess the compliance of the basis-claim clauses with public order set out in article 2414 through virtual public order. This article attempts to suggest means of interpretation aimed at establishing the illegality of base-claim clauses.

Formation of Contract and Third Parties in Cambodia

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ly Tayseng
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Contract Formation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Formal Requirements

This chapter gives an overview of the law on contract formation and third party beneficiaries in Cambodia. Much of the discussion is tentative since the new Cambodian Civil Code only entered into force from 21 December 2011 and there is little case law and academic writing fleshing out its provisions. The Code owes much to the Japanese Civil Code of 1898 and, like the latter, does not have a requirement of consideration and seldom imposes formal requirements but there are a few statutory exceptions from the principle of freedom from form. For a binding contract, the agreement of the parties is required and the offer must be made with the intention to create a legally binding obligation and becomes effective once it reaches the offeree. The new Code explicitly provides that the parties to the contract may agree to confer a right arising under the contract upon a third party. This right accrues directly from their agreement; it is not required that the third party declare its intention to accept the right.

scholarly journals Investigating Sanction of the Conditions in the Settlement Contract with Regard to Registration of Deeds and Real Estate

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afsaneh Narimisa ◽  
Alireza Entezari
Keyword(s):  
Real Estate ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Legal Problem ◽  
The Third ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Settlement Agreement ◽  
The Law

Considering that Articles 47 and 48 of the Registration Law have stated that registration of the document of settlement contract is obligatory and its sanction is the non-acceptability of unofficial documents in courts and departments. However, it must be said that these articles do not declare the invalidity of normal documents absolutely, but the meaning of the non-acceptability of such documents is that they cannot be referred to in relation to third parties, while such documents are valid and authentic for the parties to the contract, and because of the fact that the document is a normal contract, the parties to the contract cannot refuse to fulfill their commitment and execute the contract by the excuse that such documents must have been registered in accordance with the law. Therefore, referring to ordinary settlement agreement, the grantee cannot claim the propriety of some property against persons other than grantor, but in the case of denial of the occurrence of a transaction between the parties to the settlement, the beneficiary can refer to the ordinary document of that transaction to prove the occurrence of the transaction between themself and the other person, and such a reference is reviewable by the court. In addition to that the grantor and grantee can refer to ordinary document and any provable evidence in their controversy and dispute about the settlement subject and prove the occurrence of settlement, the grantee can bring an action against the grantor and obligate them to arrange an official settlement document by proving the settlement and by invoking to Article 220 of the Civil Code, because according to the mentioned article, transactors are not only committed to what is stated in the contract, but are also committed to all the results of the contract in accordance with customs or law. However, if a dispute occurs between the grantee and a third party about the settlement subject and an action is brought, then if the grantee presents the ordinary settlement document to prove their ownership, the court according to the Registration Law will not consider that document effective, and the grantee may even be convicted against the third party. The settlement is not correct if its provisions arecontrary to the law, order and the general rules, and if the settlement document arranged in a notary office has a substantive, procedural or legal problem then the competent legal authorities such as the High Council of Registry investigate the issue and the provisions applicable will be issued.

Relaxations of Contractual Privity and the Need for Third Party Rights in Chinese Contract Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen Lei
Keyword(s):  
Direct Action ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Chinese Law ◽  
The Third ◽  
Right Of Action ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines the position of third party beneficiaries in Chinese law. Article 64 of the Chinese Contract Law states that where a contract for the benefit of a third party is breached, the debtor is liable to the creditor. The author regards this as leaving unanswered the question of whether the thirdparty has a right of direct action against the debtor. One view regards the third party as having the right to sue for the benefit although this right was ultimately excluded from the law. Another view, supported by the Supreme People’s Court, is that Article 64 does not provide a right of action for a third party and merely prescribes performance in ‘incidental’ third party contracts. The third view is that there is a third party right of action in cases of ‘genuine’ third party contracts but courts are unlikely to recognize a third party action where the contract merely purports to confer a benefit on the third party.

Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties Under the Taiwan Civil Code

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheng-Lin JAN
Keyword(s):  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Privity Of Contract

This chapter discusses the position of third party beneficiaries in Taiwan law where the principle of privity of contract is well established. Article 269 of the Taiwan Civil Code confers a right on the third party to sue for performance as long as the parties have at least impliedly agreed. This should be distinguished from a ‘spurious contract’ for the benefit of third parties where there is no agreement to permit the third party to claim. Both the aggrieved party and the third party beneficiary can sue on the contract, but only for its own loss. The debtor can only set off on a counterclaim arising from its legal relationship with the third party. Where the third party coerces the debtor into the contract, the contract can be avoided, but where the third party induces the debtor to contract with the creditor by misrepresentation, the debtor can only avoid the contract if the creditor knows or ought to have known of the misrepresentation.

Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties in Japan

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masami Okino
Keyword(s):  
Case Analysis ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
German Model ◽  
Recent Debate ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses the law on third party beneficiaries in Japan; mostly characterized by adherence to the German model that still bears an imprint on Japanese contract law. Thus, there is neither a doctrine of consideration nor any other justification for a general doctrine of privity, and contracts for the benefit of third parties are generally enforceable as a matter of course. Whether an enforceable right on the part of a third party is created is simply a matter of interpretation of the contract which is always made on a case-by-case analysis but there are a number of typical scenarios where the courts normally find the existence (or non-existence) of a contract for the benefit of a third party. In the recent debate on reform of Japanese contract law, wide-ranging suggestions were made for revision of the provisions on contracts for the benefit of third parties in the Japanese Civil Code. However, it turned out that reform in this area was confined to a very limited codification of established case law.

Conditions in Favour of Third Parties

1952 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-257
Author(s):  
T. C. Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Third Party

The purpose of this article is to consider the legal effects of a transfer of property by A to B subject to the performance by B of some obligation in favour of C, a third party to the transfer. The student of the law of contract is well familiar with the common law rule that no one who was not an original party to the contract is entitled to the benefit of that contract. But this rule creates hardship in particular cases and it has been shown that, in the main, three methods have been evolved to evade those unfortunate results. First, the legislature has intervened and provided C, the third party, with statutory rights. Secondly, the doctrine of agency has been invoked whereby C may claim that he is the principal of B. Thirdly, but with varying success, the trust concept has been pressed into service whereby C has sometimes been able to show that he is a beneficiary.

scholarly journals Kolizyjnoprawna problematyka skuteczności przelewu wierzytelności wobec osób trzecich — projekt rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w sprawie prawa właściwego dla skutków przelewu wierzytelności wobec osób trzecich (COM(2018) 96 final)

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 67-90
Author(s):  
Witold Kurowski
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Habitual Residence ◽  
Eu Regulation ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Rome I

The question of which law should govern the third-party effects of assignments of claims was considered during the preparation of the Rome I Regulation. The European Commission’s proposal for the Rome I Regulation admitted the law of the assignor’s habitual residence as the law that should apply to the proprietary effects of assignments of claims. Finally, EU Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations did not include the issue of the third-party effects of the assignment. However, Article 27(2) of the Rome I Regulation required the European Commission to present a report on the question of the effectiveness of assignments of claims against third parties accompanied, if appropriate, by a proposal to amend the Rome I Regulation. Proposal for a Regulation on the law applicable to the third-party effects of assignments of claims (COM(2018) 96 final) is a response to this request. This paper analyses current draft of the new EU Regulation, the rules on determination of the third-party effects of assignments of claims (law of the assignor’s habitual residence and law of the assigned claim) and "super conflict rules" in specific cases. The author argues that the law of the assignor’s habitual residence remains the appropriate conflict rule for proprietary effects of assignments of claims.

Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties: Hong Kong

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Mason
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Strict Adherence ◽  
The Third ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Contractual Rights

This chapter analyses the law on third party beneficiaries in Hong Kong long characterized by strict adherence to the traditional common law doctrine of privity. The law relating to third party rights was only reformed by way of Ordinance in 2016, along the lines of the statutory reform of English law in 1999. A small number of specifically enumerated types of contract are excluded from the scope of the Ordinance; other contracts may be concluded to confer enforceable contractual rights on third parties. Whether a third party may enforce a term of a contract depends on the interpretation of the contract: if the third party right was not expressly conferred there is a presumption that the conferral was intended; but this can be rebutted if the parties made it clear that they did not intend it to be enforceable. The third party must be identified by name, as a member of a class, or answering a particular description and may claim the same remedies for breach as a party to the contract.

7. Privity of contract and third party rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 272-312
Author(s):  
Robert Merkin ◽  
Séverine Saintier ◽  
Jill Poole
Keyword(s):  
Contract Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Legislative Reform ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Law ◽  
Privity Of Contract

Course-focused and comprehensive, Poole’s Textbook on Contract Law provides an accessible overview of the key areas on the law curriculum. According to the doctrine of privity of contract, only the parties to the contract are bound by, or can enforce, the obligations under the contract. A person who is not a party to a contract does not have any rights under that contract and is not subject to any of its obligations (or burdens). This chapter considers the rules of contract law, and related rules, that are applicable to contracts which stipulate third party rights. It considers the relevant provisions of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, the scope of the legislative reform, the test for third party enforceability and how the doctrine of privity of contract is related to the consideration requirement. It also looks at means of circumventing the privity doctrine such as assignment, and exceptions to the privity doctrine such as agency principles as employed in The Eurymedon. The chapter then examines remedies available to the promisee which have the effect of enforcing any promise in favour of a third party beneficiary or enabling substantial damages to be recovered to cover the third party’s loss. Finally, the means by which contractual burdens may bind third parties are examined.

11. Privity of contract and third party rights

2019 ◽  
pp. 442-482
Author(s):  
Robert Merkin ◽  
Séverine Saintier
Keyword(s):  
Contract Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Legislative Reform ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Law ◽  
Privity Of Contract

Course-focused and comprehensive, the Textbook on series provides an accessible overview of the key areas on the law curriculum. According to the doctrine of privity of contract, only the parties to the contract are bound by, or can enforce the obligations under the contract. A person who is not a party to a contract does not have any rights under that contract and is not subject to any of its obligations (or burdens). This chapter considers the rules of contract law, and related rules, that are applicable to contracts which stipulate third party rights. It considers the relevant provisions of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, the scope of the legislative reform, the test for third party enforceability and how the doctrine of privity of contract is related to the consideration requirement. It also looks at means of circumventing the privity doctrine such as assignment, and exceptions to the privity doctrine such as agency principles as employed in The Eurymedon. The chapter then examines remedies available to the promisee which have the effect of enforcing any promise in favour of a third party beneficiary or enabling substantial damages to be recovered to cover the third party’s loss. Finally, the means by which contractual burdens may bind third parties are examined.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document